| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2005 04:47:44 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
Originally posted by azoychka:
Originally posted by Formerlee:
In fact, one of the most successful pieces of modern art is the London Underground Map!! This has gained world acclaim as a work of art, and a practical map. It is copied worldwide, and even though many have tried, no-one has yet bettered this masterpiece.Steve |
You are saying that the London Underground map is one of the most successful pieces of modern art? It would seem that modern art is indeed in decline, if this is so! Now, is it done with 'neatimage'? |
Yep, check it out matey! |
You are dreaming mate! Just like the local McDonalds is the most acclaimed modern architectural structure and of course practical structure. People love it and it works and by golly it is everywhere!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 04:49:56 PM · #77 |
Perhaps you should re-read what I said? I stated it was ONE of the most successful pieces of modern art...not THE most successful.
Also, while you are on a roll, check out how many countries have adopted the same design?
Steve |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 04:53:26 PM · #78 |
| I didn't said that only old cultures can have art, that's monumental stupidity to say, I said older cultures have a more pronounced CULTURAL IDENTITY. That's a totally different thing and I don't see anything to offend anyone in it. To be more clear is like when you are a little child your personality is not trully developed, and you experience with anything in seek of your personality, later in your life when you start to discover your self you get more and more focused on fewer things that you like. It's the same with culture, I feel Americans are a young culture but not only because they are young but also because they are a huge mixture of all cultures in the world, they can aford to experiment more, to be more liberal about art. I also said that's understandable and it's ok. Great things can come out of it. What in the world is insulting here? |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 04:56:48 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
Perhaps you should re-read what I said? I stated it was ONE of the most successful pieces of modern art...not THE most successful.
Also, while you are on a roll, check out how many countries have adopted the same design?
Steve |
It is a wonderful unique design. Oh yes I didn't say you said what you said or I said what you said.....sheesh......welcome to Modern Art discussion!!! :-)
What the heck is Modern Art!?!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 04:58:22 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
I didn't said that only old cultures can have art, that's monumental stupidity to say, I said older cultures have a more pronounced CULTURAL IDENTITY. That's a totally different thing and I don't see anything to offend anyone in it. To be more clear is like when you are a little child your personality is not trully developed, and you experience with anything in seek of your personality, later in your life when you start to discover your self you get more and more focused on fewer things that you like. It's the same with culture, I feel Americans are a young culture but not only because they are young but also because they are a huge mixture of all cultures in the world, they can aford to experiment more, to be more liberal about art. I also said that's understandable and it's ok. Great things can come out of it. What in the world is insulting here? |
Nuthin'
My grandson has an identity, he's 7...is his identity any different to mine? Well, I supposedly have more experience and knowledge. Yeah right, more like I have cocked it up more often! He sees things in a different way, so it is with art...cultures see art differently. I am not getting at anyone or trying to stir an argument, merely to illustrate that this is almost as dangerous a debate as religion.
Steve |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:02:33 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
Yep, this is the problem when discussing 'ART', it is all things to all people. It cannot be put in little boxes. What one person calls art, another calls crap!
It's a losing battle.
|
You're quite right, except it isn't a problem but an essence of art.
It can be all things you can imagine and many you can't. It can't be squeezed into a definition and filed in a folder. There is no yardstick to measure if something is art or not. It is if you believe it is, otherwise it is not.
There is no need to fight over this. There's plenty of room for all. Everything can be art if you only want it to be.
:-) |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:03:56 PM · #82 |
I think what is important and most interesting is that we can discuss. Am I right? Don't know don't ultimately care because I am most of all interested in your point of view. your vision and your thoughts. I know mine but out there lies a different point of view and that is very appealing. I wish to learn and to see beyond myself.................
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:11:48 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
My grandson has an identity, he's 7...is his identity any different to mine? Well, I supposedly have more experience and knowledge. Yeah right, more like I have cocked it up more often! He sees things in a different way, so it is with art...cultures see art differently. I am not getting at anyone or trying to stir an argument, merely to illustrate that this is almost as dangerous a debate as religion.
Steve |
Yes but your 7 y old grandson, had not yet found a clue of what he even might want to do with his UNIQUE life, that's why he tries and must be encouraged to try as many difrent things as possible. It's possible that we never trully find who we are what we want and wat we wanna do with our lifes, and if we figure it out if we have the possibilityes to do it, but that's a total other rather philosophical discussion. My point is that after a certain age you start to have an ideea of what you want and try to focus as much as possible on making he most of it. In my opinion Americans had not reached that age yet, not in visual arts. You are right and I don't claim to have the absolute truth maybe we are wrong us who are so conservators with our cultures and traditions, and we don't let fresh air in, that may be. I don't know. Nothing I said here today I said it because I am absolute sure I am right, it's just my point of view, but I enjoyed this discussion. Even if art is a vague debate as religion I so much like to have it with everyone speaking theyr mind and nobody taking insults. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:13:14 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
I think what is important and most interesting is that we can discuss. Am I right? Don't know don't ultimately care because I am most of all interested in your point of view. your vision and your thoughts. I know mine but out there lies a different point of view and that is very appealing. I wish to learn and to see beyond myself................. |
This is exactly what has been happening for years. Art is subjective. No-one can agree on what art is, old masters are art cos they are old. New art is all encompassing. Your idea of art is different to mine, to others and that's what makes it such a diverse topic. I think we have to agree to disagree:)
Steve |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:15:10 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
You're quite right, except it isn't a problem but an essence of art.
It can be all things you can imagine and many you can't. It can't be squeezed into a definition and filed in a folder. There is no yardstick to measure if something is art or not. It is if you believe it is, otherwise it is not.
There is no need to fight over this. There's plenty of room for all. Everything can be art if you only want it to be.
:-) |
If that's so than tell me please what's the point of having art critics, who go in years of training? Why is there a history of art? Why are there art teachers? If anyone can apreciate art at free will what the hell are these people doing? |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:16:07 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Formerlee:
My grandson has an identity, he's 7...is his identity any different to mine? Well, I supposedly have more experience and knowledge. Yeah right, more like I have cocked it up more often! He sees things in a different way, so it is with art...cultures see art differently. I am not getting at anyone or trying to stir an argument, merely to illustrate that this is almost as dangerous a debate as religion.
Steve |
Yes but your 7 y old grandson, had not yet found a clue of what he even might want to do with his UNIQUE life, that's why he tries and must be encouraged to try as many difrent things as possible. It's possible that we never trully find who we are what we want and wat we wanna do with our lifes, and if we figure it out if we have the possibilityes to do it, but that's a total other rather philosophical discussion. My point is that after a certain age you start to have an ideea of what you want and try to focus as much as possible on making he most of it. In my opinion Americans had not reached that age yet, not in visual arts. You are right and I don't claim to have the absolute truth maybe we are wrong us who are so conservators with our cultures and traditions, and we don't let fresh air in, that may be. I don't know. Nothing I said here today I said it because I am absolute sure I am right, it's just my point of view, but I enjoyed this discussion. Even if art is a vague debate as religion I so much like to have it with everyone speaking theyr mind and nobody taking insults. |
That is a good mature view on the subject, we like what we like and art is what we like, regardless of others. To insult me you would need a sledgehammer! So, to some we take snapshots, to others they are art.
Steve |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:22:43 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
This is exactly what has been happening for years. Art is subjective. No-one can agree on what art is, old masters are art cos they are old. New art is all encompassing. Your idea of art is different to mine, to others and that's what makes it such a diverse topic. I think we have to agree to disagree:)
Steve |
Yes, art is not an exact thing like math indeed, can't argue that. Art is subjective, but clichee, snapshot, kitch are not. Those can be clearly and easily identified. It's like when an artist who studied some music, and who is good in pop music, tryes to sing the blues just because he finds it looks good on him, compared to BB King. The words may be there, the tune is there, even the voice may be there, but it lacks that thing that only BB King has, and was born with it, that unique thing, it that makes you have the chills on your back when you hear it. That thing that can't be put in words too easy.
Message edited by author 2005-09-05 17:24:25. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:51:59 PM · #88 |
Art is more than just subjective 'I like' or I'm moved. The act of 'doing stuff' happens all over the place but art?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:52:06 PM · #89 |
This is a good question, here's the way I see it.
Art can be defined as anything, anything at all, providing the artist can explain WHY it is art. Of course, if you happen to have a degree from the right place then you don't even have to explain it.
Much Art on those terms will fail to be art for most of us, but there lies the problem. When artists create work which fails to "be Art" for the majority are they failures, or does the work become niche?
My taste places much modern art into the "niche" areas. For instance, I completely fail to see art in Barnett Newmans "Yellow Edge" or for that matter any of the work at the Newman exhibition I went to see. I would not be so arrogant to say "this is not art", it just fails to be Art for me. I am not blind to the abstract, merely blind to this style.
On a more photograpic note take a look at the work of William Eggleston. I suspect many of his photos would be instantly branded as "snapshots" if entered for a challenge here.
Hmmm.. I seem to have rambled a bit, where was I going with this??? =)
Oh yes. My conclusion:
It's Art if you like it, it's Art if you pressed the shutter release and say it is. If other people don't like it? Ignore them, it's your art, nobody else matters.. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 05:58:30 PM · #90 |
here are some nice, cheap, art photos . . .
Vanessa Beecroft - Sold For: 9,000 BP (16,423 US$)
Thomas Ruff - Sold For: 16,800 BP (30,656 US$)
Andres Gursky - Sold For: 28,800 BP (52,554 US$)
Cindy Sherman - Sold For: 8,400 BP (15,328 US$)
my answer to the question is that a photo is art when that is the intention of the photographer (but clearly that doesn't mean it is good art . . .)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:04:30 PM · #91 |
thjere is no doubt that much work that is sold is done so speculatively. Like the stock market or racetrack it is a gamble to see if you can pik'em right. Only time will tell and like the stockmarket and racetrack most bets lose..............
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:05:20 PM · #92 |
If I had any of these on my CF I would delete them without a thought. Maybe I'd postprocess a bit the first one but I'd toss away all the others and make sure nobody ever sees them. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:26:42 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
If I had any of these on my CF I would delete them without a thought. Maybe I'd postprocess a bit the first one but I'd toss away all the others and make sure nobody ever sees them. |
all of the above are considered very established artists (although i don't think any of those are examples of their best stuff). Sebastian Salgado is an excellent photographer who would cost around US$3000-4000 per print (but he doesn't do limited editions) - yet he is considered somewhat of a photojournalist/artist . . . or you could go for a Diane Arbus print only 15x15 inches for only US$10-15 thousand ;-) |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:30:43 PM · #94 |
Diane Arbus would 'lose' here, no black vacant background!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:35:57 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
Diane Arbus would 'lose' here, no black vacant background! |
What passes here for art often has little relevence to what goes on in the art world.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:38:56 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
Diane Arbus would 'lose' here, no black vacant background! |
and how about #1 american artist badboy matthew barney (here and here). at least his images are usually very high quality from a techincal perspective.
(warning - somewhat disturbing) |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:48:53 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by tomzinho:
Originally posted by azoychka:
Diane Arbus would 'lose' here, no black vacant background! |
and how about #1 american artist badboy matthew barney (here and here). at least his images are usually very high quality from a techincal perspective.
(warning - somewhat disturbing) |
He sure fits todays society.......
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:01:13 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
Originally posted by tomzinho:
Originally posted by azoychka:
Diane Arbus would 'lose' here, no black vacant background! |
and how about #1 american artist badboy matthew barney (here and here). at least his images are usually very high quality from a techincal perspective.
(warning - somewhat disturbing) |
He sure fits todays society....... |
...todays society...?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:14:35 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:36:00 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Unfortunatly not everyone recognises photograph as an art form (especially galleries!). Just a photo. People give towsands of bucks to have a Dali painting in the livingroom or a Monet in the hall but how many people exibit proudly an Ansel Adams print?
In your opinion what makes a photograph a piece of art, and not just a mere photo. The technique? The sense of oportunity? The tipe of print? Creativity?
Please post your opinion and personal experiense if yiu have any of exibition and selling prints, along with advices to achieve the art form, or at least more lellable prints. :)
We, the less experienced will aprecciate and assimilate the wisedom of the masters. Tanks in advance. |
|
|
